Tag Archives: American history

The Second Amendment, Then and Now

Posted on by

The Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten of the amendments to the Constitution, was first proposed to Congress by James Madison as articles to be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution.

Congress approved twelve articles of amendment to the Constitution in 1789 and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison’s proposal, they were submitted as “supplemental” additions. Articles Three through Twelve were ratified by the required number of states and became Amendments One through Ten in 1791.

The Second Amendment, which has become a matter of considerable interest in recent years, reads as follows:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This was not controversial at the time. The concept existed in English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights. And for a variety of reasons today many Americans feel it is necessary to own firearms.

The importance of this issue to the founders was quite clear. James Madison introduced the language that became the Second Amendment and also wrote: “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Alexander Hamilton, like Madison a strong advocate for Federalism, was equally explicit: “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Thomas Jefferson famously said: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.” And he also wrote that “The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War there was mob violence in several of the colonies. In addition, many American lived in or close to wilderness regions where conditions were essentially lawless. The need people felt to protect their families was quite rational.

It should be noted that a primary motivation for supporting “a well regulated Militia,” articulated in the Second Amendment as “being necessary to the security of a free State,” was the strong opposition among the founders to the concept of a standing army.

Thomas Jefferson put it this way: “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” “Every citizen should be a soldier,” he wrote. “This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

The American reality in 1776 and 1791 was entirely different from that confronting us today. Yet, news of social, religious, and psychopathic violence imposes itself on us every day. Older Americans are particularly sensitized to what has changed: the radical loss of trust and the lack of civility, ethical integrity, and social responsibility we see everywhere.

We must acknowledge the compelling reasons why so many feel it necessary to own firearms.

That said, however, I must tell you I believe the use of force among Americans today, in defense of the Constitution and the American freedoms, would be counterproductive and incompatible with an effective strategy.

Our consideration in recent posts of the dynamic relation of means to ends should, in my view, make this clear.

Violence committed by Americans against Americans would contradict the rationale behind the impetus to violence itself. It would be self-contradictory, pitting brother and sister against brother and sister, subverting the integrity and viability of the American Idea as a guiding force for the good.

We can do far better.

I have presented principles supporting this assertion in previous posts, (see especially Nov 28 and Dec 12), and will offer a more explicit argument next week.

We need to consider this carefully and get it right. We face a long crisis. Many dark and dangerous things are possible.

Tom

Next week: Principled Means, Principled Ends

Note to readers: You can support this blog and the book project by suggesting that your friends and associates take a look.

Past and Present

Posted on by

“If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.”

Winston Churchill

Sunrise 1

 

Renewing Core American Values

Posted on by

Answering questions about what has gone wrong is never comfortable. Some truths are not pretty. But, the renewal of core American values and restoration of the vibrant civic spirit we have had in the past will require recognition of what has been lost, and why.

After an honest appraisal, we are called to affirm the values and principles we have understood, but abandoned.

The present difficulties have developed largely unnoticed over a long period of time. A gradual loss of vision has left us without a collective sense of purpose or the strength of interconnected community relationships. It has left us vulnerable to materialism and the domination of an institutional culture.

Most significantly we have become obsessed with immediacy. We want what we want and we want it now. The weakness of indebtedness seems to be of no concern. And so, we have discovered reality the hard way, neglecting reason and foresight. We have abandoned the future.

We acquired an undisciplined attitude toward almost everything, from parenting to fiscal responsibility. And our attitude infected our government and many institutions.

Our insistence on freedom from institutional and cultural restraints has led to contradictions. For example, our respect for the individual requires that we honor the independent integrity and privacy of each citizen, and yet we have readily abandoned this principle out of fear for our own safety. Similarly, we have failed to see that our very own privacy has been sacrificed to the obscenity and titillation in mass media, lost in a fascination with “the raw stuff of life.” In the words of the iconic conservative philosopher Richard Weaver:

“The extremes of passion and suffering are served up to enliven the breakfast table or to lighten the boredom of an evening at home. The area of privacy has been abandoned because the definition of person has been lost; there is no longer a standard by which to judge what belongs to the individual man. Behind the offense lies the repudiation of sentiment in favor of immediacy.”  (1948)

Richard Weaver actually wrote these words before the advent of television. And he was not the first to observe this propensity. A quarter century earlier George Bernard Shaw was quoted as saying: “An American has no sense of privacy. He does not know what it means. There is no such thing in the country.”  (1933)

Is it any wonder today that we have sought to indulge our appetites for immediate gratification without consideration of the consequences?

Professor Weaver warned of a self-destructive trend that would ultimately lead to a crisis. He pointed out our fascination with specialization and with the parts of things at the expense of understanding and respecting the whole. He argued that an obsession with fragmentary parts without regard for their function necessarily leads to instability. Such instability is insidious, penetrating all relationships and institutions. In his words, “It is not to be anticipated that rational self-control will flourish in the presence of fixation upon parts.”

This is not the fault of government — except to the extent that government, managed by people like ourselves, has joined wholeheartedly in the party. In a democracy it is tragically easy for government policy to degenerate until it serves the worst inclinations of a self-interested electorate.

And so we have descended steadily into the financial profligacy of the last fifty years, and are now the most indebted nation in history by a wide margin. Ours has been a twisted path but with a clearly visible end. Yet, the outcome was foreseen only by a few who were regarded as crackpots.

If we are to restructure our civil order and economic life following the destruction and confusion of our recent past, it is essential that we recognize the wrong-headed thinking that got us here. Values and principle are not in questioned; only wisdom. The United States Constitution provides a firm foundation. What we are challenged to do now is to reconsider the way we think.